Fujifilm X100S Review

When Fujifilm announced its FinePix X100 retro-styled compact at Photokina 2010, it instantly captured the imagination of serious photographers. With its fixed 23mm F2 lens and SLR-sized APS-C sensor, it offered outstanding image quality, while its 'traditional' dial-based handling and innovative optical/electronic 'hybrid' viewfinder gave a shooting experience reminiscent of rangefinder cameras. On launch its firmware was riddled with frustrating bugs and quirks, but a series of updates transformed it into a serious photographic tool. Certain flaws remained, apparently too deeply embedded into the hardware to be fixable, but despite this, it counts as something of a cult classic.

The X100S sees Fujifilm revisiting the concept, but while the external design is essentially unchanged, it's a very different camera inside. It uses a 16.3MP X-Trans CMOS sensor similar to that seen in the interchangeable lens X-Pro1 and X-E1 models, but now with on-chip phase detection promising much-improved autofocus speed. This is supported by a new processor, the 'EXR Processor II', which includes a new 'Lens Modulation Optimizer' function. According to Fujifilm this 'overcomes' lens aberrations such as diffraction and peripheral aberrations, and should give improved image quality at the largest and smallest apertures. The electronic viewfinder has been upgraded to a higher-resolution 2.35M dot display (from 1.44M dot); however this isn't the OLED unit used in the X-E1, but an LCD instead.

Two additional manual focus aids are available when using the EVF or LCD - a focus 'peaking' display that outlines in-focus elements, and an all-new 'Digital Split Image focusing' display that uses phase detection data from the sensor, and is designed to offer a similar experience to manual focus film cameras. In addition, the movement sensor on the manual focus ring has been upgraded to detect movement with greater precision - which Fujifilm says will make it more responsive.

The user interface gains all the improvements Fujifilm has made in its X-series cameras over the past few years, including an onscreen 'Q' menu to access major settings, and a much-improved tabbed menu system.

Aside from these headline features, Fujifilm is promising a whole host of smaller tweaks and improvements covering every aspect of the camera's design and operation - no fewer than 70 in total. Many of these address bugs and quirks highlighted by users and reviewers, demonstrating once again Fujifilm's laudable desire to listen to feedback and learn from it. Some controls have been subtly tweaked, movie mode is much improved, and small but important operability issues have been addressed.

Side-by-side with the Fujifilm X20

Here's the X100S side-by-side with the X20 that Fujifilm announced at the same time (we reviewed it earlier this year). The two cameras are very different beasts, of course, but share a lot of common features, and the family resemblance is obvious.

Here's the X100S alongside the co-announced X20 zoom compact. Both cameras feature X-Trans CMOS sensors with on-chip phase detection AF, optical viewfinders with detailed information overlays, and lots of external controls. Their on-screen user interfaces and menu systems are very similar too. The big difference is that the X20's fast (F2-2.8) 28-112mm equivalent zoom is coupled to a much smaller, 2/3"-type sensor.

Compared to Sony Cyber-shot RX1R

The X100S's most natural peer (forgetting the massive price difference) is Sony's RX1R, which offers a full-frame 24MP CMOS sensor and a similar 35mm (equivalent) F2 lens as the X100S.

The X100S is slightly taller and wider, but on the plus side, it has a better-defined grip, and of course that unique Fujifilm built-in hybrid viewfinder. Given that the RX1R is packing a full-frame sensor inside it though, the Cyber-shot is impressively compact.

From behind, its the X100S's viewfinder that represents the main difference between the two cameras. The rear control cluster on both models is pretty standard, but the RX1R does have a larger display (which partly makes up for the lack of a finder).

From the top, it is very obvious just how big the RX1R's lens is compared to the almost pancake design of the Fujifilm's 23mm F2. Both cameras have manual aperture rings, and external exposure compensation dials, but the X100S also offers a manual shutter speed dial. The RX1R features an exposure mode dial, in the same position.

If you're new to digital photography you may wish to read the Digital Photography Glossary before diving into this article (it may help you understand some of the terms used).

Conclusion / Recommendation / Ratings are based on the opinion of the reviewer, you should read the ENTIRE review before coming to your own conclusions.

We recommend to make the most of this review you should be able to see the difference (at least) between X, Y, and Z and ideally A, B, and C.

This article is Copyright 1998 - 2015 and may NOT in part or in whole be reproduced in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from the author.

Actually after checking the cons list I can say, most of them if not all are not considered cons at all..If I am to mention one thing I don't like about X100S it would be ; Fuji not providing it in BLACK..it just doesn't feel so good shooting with something that shiny in streets.

While I am sure the camera is great and the image quality is superb this camera has very limited use. I would think that would know several points off the score.TelephotoStandard portraits (70-135mm)Ultra wide angleThis camera can't do a lot of very common things people do with their cameras.

You can't subtract points just because the camera isn't what it's not supposed to be. A fixed focal length camera is not meant for general use, but for use cases where that particular focal length is appropriate (and that might be more cases than you'd think). If you want to shoot telephoto or ultra wide angle, you should use a camera that is designed to do just that.

True, The X100(s) isn't everything a DSLR can be, but I've to say that after getting my X100, I've stopped using the D300. For TWO full years. It's actually amazing (and somewhat ridiculous) how much I enjoy using the X100. Sure I miss getting telephoto ranges at times, but the sheer enjoyment of being able to bring my X100 anywhere, anytime sure makes for it.

I'm even considering trading in both my X100 and D300 for a new X100s... tempting.

Since it seems that someone from Fuji might even read the comments ... I really wish that original X-100 had added functionality to add new Quick menu from X-100S. That should not be too complicated as it basically uses the same button (RAW on X-100) and I would happily give up RAW for improved user interface.

Also with all words of prise for new X-100S .. one thing the older sensor from X-100 excels easily with ... is Dynamic Range ...surprisingly... I would not imagine the difference would be so substantial ...

So I am keeping my X-100 for now and hope Fuji will make it even better camera via next firmware update .... Pretty Please!

It's a fixed 35mm - there really aren't that many applications where we found that AF tracking is really useful. That's a feature we use more at longer focal lengths (you may of course disagree, but that's just what we concluded).

Like I say, it's subjective. My camera is almost always in AF-C. I find it very useful when shooting concerts or in "street photography" (not a fan of this term, but it's the accepted terminology) where the subjects are constantly moving. As you're probably aware this camera is very popular with the burgeoning street photography contingent and no doubt they'd find AF-C the most useful option.

Shooting sports up-close like skateboarding and BMX benefits from AF-C. Even shooting candid-style portraits with a model that is moving quickly from pose to pose can benefit from AF-C.

In any case I just don't think making blanket statements like the "least useful option" makes sense without a qualifier. The least useful option for you isn't the least useful option for everyone, so it comes off as misleading without any clarification. That's just my 2¢...

DPR you are giving away gold awards to the majority of cameras now (not counting your "rugged camera" reviews). I'm not saying that the X100s doesn't deserve it but I think you're really diluted the value of a gold award and it's almost like a silver award means its a camera to avoid. You really need to rethink and clearly define your criteria for rating cameras because right now you are sending a lot of mixed messages.

I think this has less to do with dpreview tossing out gold awards like candy and more to do with rapid camera advancement and the creation of several new camera spaces with no standard to compare the camera being reviewed to.

@ Alpcns2: HALLELUJAH Brother. In case most of the populace doesn't get it, we've been in the "Golden Age" of camera development for some time now. You can't go wrong with the X100s or the OMD or the RX100 or the Nikon A or a D800 or or or or or or....

What doesn't exist now, nor will it EVER exist despite the whining and moaning forum heads dish out is a "perfect" camera for everyone in all circumstances.

If you don't like the X100s, go shoot with something else you like better.

It's a valid criticism, and one that is called out in the review (and reflected in the score). But yes - Revenant's point is a good one, and that's basically the reason why it didn't cost the X100S its gold award. Awards are subjective, and there's no inherent connection between score/award (it's explained in a link next to the scoring widget on the conclusion page).

Re: video, the problem is that Fujifilm was the one who heavily promoted the new video features, namely 1080p60 at 36 mbps for both the X100s and X20. And when I got my X20, I was surprised by the moire, and that 1080p60 was nothing like the Sony or Panasonic AVCHD 60p video that we are used to. But no, the X100s is a still camera down at it's core so it's not a big deal at all.

The original X100 got a silver award so unless the lens fell off (or it produced the white orbs that were going to put Fuji out of business) the outcome of this test was obvious. And it is an excellent camera. In fact, they both are.

Awesome camera. I miss my X100 everyday. It's always a bad idea to sell something with such excellent IQ that is so pretty.

But it's a detailed, well-done review. I might have been nice to have the IQ comparison widget default to the other two fixed lens cameras without AA filters, the Ricoh GR and Coolpix A. But I suppose you had a reason for picking the EM5. But fortunately the widget allows us to compare all cameras in the database.

Anyway, terrific camera that should get top honors for the hybrid VF alone. Throw in the outstanding high ISO ability, and Phase Detect AF, and Fujifilm has a winner indeed.

The whole JPEG vs. raw debate is a pseudo-debate. It's not like they are two conflicting image formats.

You do realize that the JPEGs you get from the camera started out as raw sensor data? And that the end result for those who shoot raw is also a JPEG image (or another RGB image format, such as TIFF)? The only difference is that raw shooters prefer to have full control over noise reduction and other parameters, rather than using the limited in-camera controls. Why does that make them posers?

Johnsonj's post is meaningless. It only illustrates his ignorance about the advantages of shooting RAW vs. JPEG.

A knowledgeable photographer will be aware of the advantages/disadvantages of both RAW and JPEG and will select the image file format based on the situation and his/her particular requirements.

Good easily-understandable explanations of the advantages of RAW vs. JPEG can be found at http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml and http://bythom.com/qadraw.htm.